Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CANDACE OWENS, in her individual capacity, and CANDACE OWENS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LEAD STORIES, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, and GANNETT SATELLITE INFORMATION NETWORK, LLC d/b/a USA TODAY, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants.
:::::::::::::::::::
C.A. No. _____________
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Plaintiffs Candace Owens and Candace Owens, LLC
(“Plaintiffs”), by and through counsel, and states their Complaint against Defendants
Lead Stories, LLC (“Lead Stories”) and Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC
d/b/a USA TODAY (“USA TODAY”) (collectively, the “Defendants”) as follows:
EFiled: Oct 19 2020 04:18PM EDT Transaction ID 66034255Case No. S20C-10-016 CAK
2
INTRODUCTION
1. This action arises from the Defendants’ malicious publication of false
“fact check” articles charging Plaintiffs with spreading misinformation about the
Covid-19 pandemic on the internet in “an attempt to downplay the severity” of the
pandemic.
2. The Defendants wrongfully leveraged their power as Facebook Third-
Party Fact-Checking partners to place false or misleading information warning labels
on Plaintiffs’ posts for the purpose of redirecting web traffic away from Plaintiffs
and directing it to their respective websites. By such a scheme, the Defendants
sought to increase their number of clicks and advertising revenue by commandeering
Plaintiffs’ large Facebook following, enhance their status on the internet, and
enhance their relationship with Facebook as Third-Party Fact-Checking partners.
3. The content published by Plaintiffs, alleged below, is not “obscene,
lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable”
within the meaning of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“Section
230”), and the Defendants and Facebook did not censor Plaintiffs’ content in good
faith.
4. Defendants’ Third-Party Fact-Checking agreement with Facebook is
void against public policy because it allows Defendants to censor speech that does
not fall within the specific categories of content enumerated in Section 230.
3
PARTIES
Candace Owens
5. Plaintiff Candace Owens is a citizen and domiciliary of the District of
Columbia.
6. Candace Owens is a highly-regarded, free-thinking and popular
African-American conservative commentator who offers her opinion on a variety of
political issues.
7. For example, Candace recently authored a book entitled “Blackout,”
which argues that liberal policies and ideals are actually harmful to Black Americans
and hinders their ability to rise above poverty, live independent and successful lives,
and be an active part of the American Dream.1
8. Similarly, in 2018, Candace started a movement known as “Blexit,”
which is a term used to describe and encourage the Black exit from the Democratic
party in favor of the Republican party.
9. Between 2017 and 2019, Candace served as communications director
for Turning Point USA, a conservative, pro-President Trump non-profit
organization.
1 See https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Blackout/Candace-Owens/9781982133276 (last visited Aug. 20, 2020).
4
10. In 2019, Candace married George Farmer, the son of a British
Conservative Party peer Lord Michael Farmer, and their wedding was held at the
Trump Winery in Virginia and attended by Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage.
11. Candace has her own podcast program called “The Candace Owens
Show” on PragerU, a nonprofit organization whose stated mission is “[t]o promote
what is true, what is excellent, and what is noble through digital media.”2
12. Candace is a prominent social media star. She maintains, through her
company, Candace Owens, LLC, a popular Facebook page, which has well over 4
million active followers (the “Facebook Page”).3
13. Upon information and belief, prior to the publication of the Defendants’
articles (alleged below), the Facebook Page was not in danger of being suspended
by or banned from Facebook.
14. Candace also maintains, through Candace Owens, LLC, a popular
Twitter account, which has approximately 2.6 million followers.4
2 The Court can view her program page at https://www.prageru.com/series/candace/ (last visited Aug. 25, 2020). 3 Candace’s Facebook Page can be viewed by the Court at https://www.facebook.com/realCandaceOwens/?ref=page_internal (last visited August 20, 2020). 4 Candace’s Twitter account can be viewed by the Court at https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO (last visited August 20, 2020) (the “Twitter Account”).
5
15. Candace’s popular social media posts reveal her opinions on the state
of Black America, the Democratic and Republican Parties, and her support for
President Donald Trump.
16. But her popularity does not come without opposition. Facebook
employees, motivated by hostility towards Candace’s conservative political
viewpoint and open support of President Trump, have maliciously and falsely
labeled her a “Hate Agent” and actively attempt to limit her use of Facebook’s
platform.5
17. Nevertheless, Candace takes pride in her social media posts and is often
a last bastion for truth in an online world of misinformation. Candace is popular and
economically successful in her trade as a political commentator because her posts
are meticulously researched, carefully argued, and strive to be accurate and truthful.
Her followers recognize her as a champion of truth and continue to follow her
because she is truthful and courageous in her social media posts.
5 See Chris Enloe, Report: Facebook tracks list of ‘hate agents’ that includes Candace Owens, The Blaze (May 20, 2019), https://www.theblaze.com/news/facebook-hate-agents-candace-owens.
6
Candace Owens, LLC
18. Plaintiff Candace Owens, LLC is a limited liability company existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware. Candace Owens, LLC is citizen and
domiciliary of the State of Delaware.
19. Candace Owens, LLC is a pass-through entity that is named after
Candace and solely controlled and managed by Candace.
20. Candace Owens, LLC is the legal entity used by Candace Owens to,
among other things, operate and manage Candace’s popular social media accounts,
including the Facebook Page.
21. Candace Owens, LLC is named after Candace, and Candace has
primary control over the management of Candace Owens, LLC.
22. In fact, Facebook shows, under a “Page Transparency” window, to all
Facebook users who access Candace’s Facebook Page that it is Candace Owens,
LLC who is the “Page Owner” of Candace’s Facebook Page, as depicted in the below
screenshot:
7
23. In a more detailed Page Transparency view, a screenshot of which was
taken on September 14, 2020 and attached below for the Court’s convenience,
Facebook indicates that the name of the page is “Candace Owens.” Moreover, the
same detailed Page Transparency view shows that Facebook banned Candace
Owens, LLC from running ads and deriving revenue from the Facebook platform—it
states that “This Page is Not Currently Running Ads”:
24. Candace herself writes the content that is published on the social media
accounts managed by Candace Owens, LLC.
8
25. Candace Owens, LLC derives significant revenue from its posts on
various social media websites, including Facebook, through advertising.
26. Candace Owens, LLC has a contract with Facebook that allows
Candace Owens, LLC to publish content on Facebook. In return, the contract
provides that Candace Owens, LLC will be compensated by Facebook and its
network of advertisers.
27. On June 22, 2020, Facebook demonetized Candace Owens, LLC,
suspending its ability to derive revenue from Facebook.
28. As a proximate consequence of Defendants’ actions as alleged herein,
and to the date of filing this Complaint, Candace Owens, LLC remains demonetized
and unable to derive revenue from Facebook.
Lead Stories, LLC
29. Defendant Lead Stories, LLC is a foreign limited liability company
existing under the laws of the State of Colorado. Lead Stories, LLC is a citizen and
domiciliary of the State of Colorado, with its principal place of business being
located at 31 N. Tejon St., Ste. 405, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903. Lead Stories
may be served by delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to its duly-
appointed registered agent, Sanders Law Firm, 31 N. Tejon St., Ste. 400, Colorado
Springs, Colorado 80903, in accordance with the provisions of 10 Del. Code § 3101,
et seq. and Del R. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 4.
9
30. Lead Stories has its own independent website at LeadStories.com,
which is where it publishes its “fact check” articles. The Court can view Lead
Stories’ website at https://leadstories.com/ (last visited Sep. 11, 2020).
31. Lead Stories is a “Facebook Third-Party Fact-Checking Partner” as it
is defined by Facebook.6
32. Upon information and belief, Lead Stories is paid by Facebook to
publish a certain amount of “fact check” articles that analyze whether certain
Facebook posts contain truthful information or not.
33. Lead Stories is a signatory to the International Fact Checking Network
(“IFCN”), which is a unit of the Poynter Institute of Media Studies that promulgates
a “code of principles” to promote “excellence in fact-checking.”7
34. One of the co-founders of Lead Stories is Alan Duke, who was a former
editor of the Cable News Network (“CNN”) for 26 years. CNN is an organization
with a provable political and journalistic bias in favor of the Democratic party over
the Republican party.
35. Ryan Cooper, who was Lead Stories’ reporter who wrote the April 1
Article (as alleged later in this Complaint), formerly worked for CNN for more than
6 See https://www.facebook.com/journalismproject/programs/third-party-fact-checking (last visited Aug. 26, 2020). 7 See https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/ (last visited August 21, 2020).
10
22 years and has written a thesis on the “impact of fake news and disinformation on
the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” which attacks the legitimacy of the Trump
presidency.8
Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC d/b/a USA TODAY
36. Defendant Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC d/b/a USA
TODAY (“USA TODAY”) is a limited liability company existing under the laws of
the State of Delaware with its principal place of business being located at 7950 Jones
Branch Drive, McLean, Virginia 22107. USA TODAY is a citizen of the State of
Delaware and the State of Virginia. USA TODAY may be served by delivery of a
copy of the summons and complaint to its duly-appointed registered agent, The
Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center 1209 Orange Street,
Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
37. USA TODAY publishes a popular online and print newspaper
throughout the United States that is viewed by millions of people every day. USA
TODAY has its own website at www.usatoday.com, which is where it publishes its
“fact check” articles, as well as its other articles.
8 See https://leadstories.com/ryan-cooper.html (last visited Sep. 11, 2020).
11
38. USA TODAY is a member and “partner” of Facebook’s Third-Party
Fact-Checking Program as it is defined by Facebook.9 In this way, USA TODAY
has an agreement with Facebook to publish fact-check articles on various Facebook
and other internet posts.
39. Upon information and belief, USA TODAY is paid by Facebook, and
possibly others, to publish a certain amount of “fact check” articles that analyze
whether certain Facebook posts contain truthful information or not.
JURISDICTION
40. The preceding paragraphs are hereby realleged as if fully restated
herein.
41. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action as the state
court of general jurisdiction pursuant to 10 Del Code § 541.
42. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Gannett Satellite
Information Network, LLC d/b/a USA TODAY because it is a Delaware citizen.
9 See https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pr/2020/03/12/usa-today-expands-its-fact-checking-efforts-new-partnership-facebook-identify-misinformation/5032239002/ (last visited Oct. 8, 2020); https://www.facebook.com/journalismproject/programs/third-party-fact-checking (last visited Aug. 26, 2020).
12
43. This Court has personal jurisdiction over nonresident Defendant Lead
Stories, LLC pursuant to 10 Del. Code § 3104 and the minimum contacts due process
requirements of the Constitution.
44. Lead Stories regularly contracts to supply fact-checking services to
Facebook, which operates extensively in this State. By the same token, Lead Stories
regularly engages in a persistent course of conduct in Delaware and derives
substantial revenue from Delaware by providing fact-checking services to Delaware
citizens through its website and through Facebook.
45. Lead Stories regularly circulates its articles in Delaware through
Facebook and the internet, and Delaware citizens regularly interact with Lead
Stories’ articles through Facebook and the internet.
46. Lead Stories targeted a citizen of Delaware and caused reputational
injury to be suffered in Delaware to a citizen of Delaware. In order to profit from
redirecting Candace’s visitors, and to further its policy preferences and mute those
it opposes, Lead Stories purposely and with malice targeted Candace personally and
Candace Owens, LLC by tortiously interfering with Candace and Candace Owens,
LLC’s contractual relationship with Facebook and her and the LLC’s prospective
business relationships that stemmed from her successful and widely read Facebook
posts and blog posts.
13
47. Through the use of the internet and its network, Lead Stories caused
tortious injury to be suffered inside Delaware by an act outside of Delaware.
48. Lead Stories caused tortious injury in Delaware to a citizen of
Delaware, including by publication and injury in Delaware.
49. Plaintiffs’ causes of action against Lead Stories arise from or relate to
Lead Stories’ contacts with Delaware, specifically with its targeting of Candace
Owens, LLC, a Delaware corporation, thereby invoking specific personal
jurisdiction.
50. Lead Stories’ website, www.leadstories.com, is an interactive website.
It allows and encourages users, including users who are citizens of Delaware, to
engage with the articles posted thereon through the use of sharing links. By
encouraging this sharing of links, Lead Stories seeks and obtains profitable
relationships with citizens of Delaware.
51. Lead Stories’ website contains and promotes numerous advertisements,
links, banners, and other marketing devices that encourage its readers, including
citizens of Delaware, to engage with and make purchases from Lead Stories’
supporters and advertisers. On information and belief, it is alleged that Lead Stories
is compensated for that advertising and marketing, and that these payments increase
or rely on visitors who view the entire advertisement, or “click” on the offer or
enticement, or make actual purchases from Lead Stories’ advertisers and supporters.
14
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
52. The preceding paragraphs are hereby realleged as if fully restated
herein.
Relevant Social Media Posts
The First Facebook Post
53. On March 29, 2020, Candace published a post via her Facebook Page
that outlined facts and her opinion surrounding the method U.S. government officials
were using to count the Covid-19 pandemic death toll (the “First Facebook Post”).
Mirroring an argument that has been made in numerous publications by numerous
commentators and expert analysts, Candace’s First Facebook Post argued that
government measures of cause-of-death overstated the extent and danger of the
Covid-19 pandemic.
Important information for everyone to know about #coronavirus. Obesity is the number 1 killer in America. Right now, they are giving everyone who dies a Covid-19 lab test. If people die from heart disease, but were asymptomatic carriers of Covid-19, their deaths are counted toward the total. Same with other viruses an[d] illnesses. I am an asthmatic. If I die from an asthma attack today, and it is determined that I have Covid-19 in my system at the time of death, my death counts as “complications from coronavirus,” even if I never had any symptoms. They are trying desperately to get the numbers they need to justify this pandemic response.
15
Candace did not simply make an unsupported assertion that government officials
were overstating Covid-19 fatalities. Her post cites to a research paper establishing
this contention and described her personal research efforts on this topic and enlisted
her readers’ assistance in continuing her research project. Indeed, the Facebook Post
continued:
Below is an article that explains how they are manipulating deaths. I spent all day today trying to look up daily death rates for any other diseases. You can’t get it anywhere. They are reporting ONLY on coronavirus deaths. I suspect if we begin to demand the daily death toll numbers for heart disease, we will observe a deep decline. I am most interested in NYC overall deaths for this past month (Not just from Covid-19). If anyone knows where we can get this information, please let me know. They seem to be locking it down. If they can tell us how many people are dying from coronavirus daily— why can’t they tell us how many people are dying otherwise?
Far from constituting a “false” posting, which is how Lead Stories would describe
it, Plaintiffs’ post was thoughtful, sourced, researched, and clearly furthered the
important discussion of the most significant ongoing national crisis in decades.10 A
true and correct copy of the Facebook Post is attached as Exhibit A.
54. Candace’s First Facebook Post is true or substantially true.
10 The First Facebook Post is still online and can be viewed by the Court at https://www.facebook.com/realCandaceOwens/posts/3598900840181091 (last visited August 25, 2020).
16
55. Candace’s First Facebook Post linked and referenced an article written
by Dr. John Lee. Dr. Lee is a noted medical authority. He is a former professor of
pathology and is a consultant pathologist with the National Health Service.11 A true
and correct copy of this article is attached as Exhibit B.
56. Dr. Lee’s article confirms that Candace’s First Facebook Post is
accurate. Dr. Lee, consistent with the factual basis for Candace’s First Facebook
Post, explains that, in general, the cause of death (here referencing the U.K. and
respiratory infections) is not always recorded in a way that the public might expect.
(Upon information and belief, the reporting criteria for cause of death are
international: thus, the standards to be followed in the U.K. mirror those in the U.S.).
Instead, specific causes of death by respiratory infection is not recorded unless the
illness constitutes a “notifiable disease.” For respiratory illnesses, these diseases are
“rare.”
But there’s another, potentially even more serious problem: the way that deaths are recorded. If someone dies of a respiratory infection in the UK, the specific cause of the infection is not usually recorded, unless the illness is a rare ‘notifiable disease.’ So the vast majority of respiratory deaths in the UK are recorded as bronchopneumonia, pneumonia, old age or a similar designation. We don’t really test for flu, or other seasonal
11 Dr. Lee’s article is still online and can be viewed by the Court at https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/The-evidence-on-Covid-19-is-not-as-clear-as-we-think?fbclid=IwAR2H45UElxXClpP4T1stxhKPCuGp0HgWb6SZ5cyBhMtJvn64p8fHJCZ0rXY (last visited August 20, 2020).
17
infections. If the patient has, say, cancer, motor neurone (sic) disease or another serious disease, this will be recorded as the cause of death, even if the final illness was a respiratory infection. This means UK certifications normally under-record deaths due to respiratory infections.
Thus, explains Dr. Lee, the actual cause of death is not always listed as the reported
cause of death. Then Dr. Lee takes his general point and applies it specifically to
the problem of deaths from Covid-19. He points out that Covid-19 has been listed
as a “notifiable disease.”
Now look at what has happened since the emergence of Covid-19. The list of notifiable diseases has been updated. This list — as well as containing smallpox (which has been extinct for many years) and conditions such as anthrax, brucellosis, plague and rabies (which most UK doctors will never see in their entire careers) — has now been amended to include Covid-19. But not flu. That means every positive test for Covid-19 must be notified, in a way that it just would not be for flu or most other infections.
This is important. Dr. Lee, an international expert and NHS consulting pathologist,
explains precisely why Covid-19 would be potentially overstated as the cause of
death. Covid-19 is listed, and therefore deaths from that disease will be “notified”
or reported in a way that deaths from other, common respiratory diseases and
maladies will not. The result, as Dr. Lee explains below, is that Covid-19 deaths
will be reported and recorded in a way that deaths from other infections are not.
In the current climate, anyone with a positive test for Covid-19 will certainly be known to clinical staff looking
18
after them: if any of these patients dies, staff will have to record the Covid-19 designation on the death certificate — contrary to usual practice for most infections of this kind. There is a big difference between Covid-19 causing death, and Covid-19 being found in someone who died of other causes. Making Covid-19 notifiable might give the appearance of it causing increasing numbers of deaths, whether this is true or not. It might appear far more of a killer than flu, simply because of the way deaths are recorded.
As Dr. Lee explains, the method of reporting cause of death might make Covid-19
“appear far more of a killer than the flu, simply because of the way deaths are
recorded.” Finally, Dr. Lee ties his explanation to public policy.
If we take drastic measures to reduce the incidence of Covid-19, it follows that the deaths will also go down. We risk being convinced that we have averted something that was never really going to be as severe as we feared. This unusual way of reporting Covid-19 deaths explains the clear finding that most of its victims have underlying conditions — and would normally be susceptible to other seasonal viruses, which are virtually never recorded as a specific cause of death.
It is this aberration, this “unusual way of reporting Covid-19 deaths,” that explains
the “clear finding” that “most of its victims have underlying conditions.” This point
is not contestable. It is a “clear finding,” one which Cadence Owens repeats and
reports on to her vast network on Facebook. This “clear finding” in the expert view
of the medical doctor is what the inexpert journalist at Lead Stories terms “false”
and a “hoax.”
19
57. Multiple credible United States officials, including Dr. Deborah Birx,
a world-renowned global health official whose three-decade-long career has focused
on HIV/AIDS immunology, vaccine research, and global health, and who is a
prominent member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, have likewise
confirmed that the factual basis for Candace’s First Facebook Post is true. On April
7, 2020, during a White House coronavirus press conference, Dr. Birx stated
unequivocally:
There are other countries that if you had a preexisting condition and let's say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem some countries are recording as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death. Right now we are still recording it and we will I mean the great thing about having forms that come in and a form that has the ability to market as COVID-19 infection the intent is right now that those if someone dies with COVID-19 we are counting that as a COVID-19 death.
There is no doubt from Dr. Birx’s statement that, in America, if a person dies while
testing positive for Covid-19, that person is counted as a Covid-19 death, even if
something else caused that person’s death.12
12 See Tim Hains, Dr. Birx: Unlike Some Countries, “If Someone Dies With COVID-19 We Are Counting That As A COVID-19 Death.” Real Clear Politics (April 8, 2020), https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/08/dr_birx_unlike_some_countries_if_someone_dies_with_covid-19_we_are_counting_that_as_a_covid-19_death.html (last visited Aug. 25, 2020).
20
58. Likewise, Dr. Ngozi Ezike, the Director of Public Health in Illinois, has
confirmed this method of counting the death toll:
If you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death. It means technically even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it's still listed as a COVID death. So, everyone who's listed as a COVID death doesn't mean that that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of the death.13
59. Candace also published several tweets outlining how the U.S.
government was counting Covid-19 deaths. For example, on March 29, 2020,
Candace tweeted:
The number one killer in America is Heart disease. 1,002 people a day. Did you know that if you die from heart disease right now, and they determine you to be an asymptomatic carrier of Covid-19 in your post-Mortem (sic), they legally add your death to the #Coronavirus death toll?
This tweet is still available online and can be viewed by the Court at
https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1244380921329070081 (last visited
August 21, 2020). This tweet was incorporated into Candace’s First Facebook Post.
13 See Lauren Melendez, IDPH Director explains how Covid deaths are classified, Week.com (April 20, 2020), https://week.com/2020/04/20/idph-director-explains-how-covid-deaths-are-classified/.
21
60. Far from being “false,” or constituting a “hoax,” Candace’s First
Facebook Post and the recordation of cause of death were carefully researched, cited
leading medical experts, and were consistent with the views of leading medical
authorities.
The Second Facebook Post
61. On April 28, 2020, Candace published a post via her Facebook Page
that questioned the relationship between and the counting of flu deaths and Covid-
19 deaths in early 2020 (the “Second Facebook Post”). The Second Facebook Post
stated:
According to CDC reports—2020 is working out to be the lowest flu death season of the decade. 20,000 flu deaths took place before Covid-19 in January, and then only 4,000 deaths thereafter. To give you context: 80,000 Americans died of the flu in 2019.
The Second Facebook Post incorporated the text of a tweet published by Candace
on her Twitter account that stated:
Possibly the greatest trade deal ever inked was between the flu virus and #coronavirus. So glad nobody is dying of the flu anymore, and therefore the CDC has abruptly decided to stop calculating flu deaths altogether. Agreements between viruses are the way of the future!14
14 The Second Facebook Post is still online and can be viewed by the Court at https://www.facebook.com/realCandaceOwens/posts/3701928399878334 (last visited Oct. 8, 2020).
22
A true and correct copy of the Second Facebook Post is attached to this Complaint
and hereby incorporated by reference as Exhibit C.
62. The Second Facebook Post communicates Candace’s opinion and was
not interpreted by reasonable readers to convey actual statements of fact. To the
extent that readers read the Second Facebook Post to convey statements of fact, those
statements are true or substantially true.
63. Candace’s Second Facebook Post utilizes hyperbolic sarcasm—a
literary technique—to pointedly highlight and question how immense public
attention was being given to the Covid-19 pandemic and very little attention being
given to regular flu deaths in early 2020.
64. The essence of the Second Facebook Post is to highlight the idea that
the public could be giving undue attention to the Covid-19 pandemic and not to other
diseases, such as the flu. Indeed, a chart produced by the Centers for Disease Control
(“CDC”) shows that the 2019-2020 season of flu deaths was one of the most abrupt
reduction in deaths on record, which tends to prove that public attention shifted away
from flu deaths in early 2020 when the Covid-19 pandemic hit:15
15 https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/05/05/flu-update (last visited Oct. 15, 2020).
23
65. The purpose of Candace’s Second Facebook Post was not to republish
actual statistics but to raise an issue in an ongoing debate surrounding Covid-19.
The purpose of the Second Facebook Post was to highlight an issue in the public
perception of the Covid-19 pandemic. In this way, the Second Facebook Post reads
more like a critique of the media response to the Covid-19 pandemic than it does a
statistical exposé of the amount of flu deaths in recent years.
66. As alleged later in this Complaint, USA TODAY published an article
“fact checking” the Second Facebook Post. USA TODAY should have known, like
any reasonable reader would know, that Candace’s Second Facebook Post was not
capable of being fact checked because the post was merely being sarcastic about the
difference between flu deaths and Covid-19 deaths.
24
67. As a result of USA TODAY’s article, alleged later in this Complaint,
Facebook placed a false information warning label upon Candace’s Second
Facebook Post that blocks its viewability to readers, as depicted below:
68. Candace’s Second Facebook Post was “fact checked” by USA TODAY
because it desired to publish its own weblink on her Second Facebook Post,
hijacking her large following to obtain clicks and views on USA TODAY’s own
article.
69. Candace has also published several other social media posts about the
Covid-19 pandemic that are not the subject of this action.
25
Lead Stories Published False Statements About the Plaintiffs
70. On April 1, 2020, Lead Stories published an article written by its
reporter Ryan Cooper with the headline, “Fact Check: COVID-19 NOT Being
Blamed For Deaths Primarily Due To Unrelated Causes” (the “April 1 Article”).16
A true and correct copy of the April 1 Article is attached as Exhibit D and is hereby
incorporated by reference in its entirety.
71. Data soured from Facebook’s Crowdtangle web tool shows that the
April 1 Article was interacted with over 2,600 times on Facebook.
72. Lead Stories republished its April 1 Article on Facebook on April 1,
2020. Facebook is an interactive website. By republishing the April 1 Article on
Facebook, Lead Stories invited public comment on the April 1 Article.17
73. Lead Stories’ April 1 Article imputes to Candace the false charge that
she is a liar who intentionally lied about the Covid-19 pandemic to “downplay the
severity” of the disease, presumably in an effort to bolster President Trump’s
successful handling of the pandemic and to increase Plaintiffs’ advertising revenue
from Facebook.
16 The April 1 Article is still available online and can be viewed by the Court at https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/04/Fact-Check-COVID19-NOT-Being-Blamed-For-Deaths-Primarily-Due-To-Unrelated-Causes.html.17 This republication is still available online and can be viewed by the Court at https://www.facebook.com/LeadStoriesCom/posts/2881451205287498 (last visited Sep. 11, 2020).
26
74. Lead Stories’ April 1 Article terming Candace an intentional liar is
unequivocally false.
75. On Lead Stories’ website, as a link to the April 1 Article, Lead Stories
labeled a screenshot of Candace Owens’ Facebook Post with the words “Hoax Alert”
and “False,” as pictured below:
These two statements are provably untrue because Candace’s Facebook Post was not
a “hoax” nor was it “false.”
76. In its April 1 Article, Lead Stories published at least three false and
defamatory statements about Plaintiffs and the Facebook Post. The three false
statements are organized in the table below for the Court’s convenience:
SPECIFIC FALSE STATEMENTS IN LEAD STORIES’ APRIL 1
ARTICLE
Statement 1“The [false] claims [about the Covid-19 death counting method] originated in a post … published on Facebook by Candace Owens on March 29, 2020.”
27
Statement 2
“[Owens’ First Facebook Post] is being shared to suggest that medical officials are – in Owens’ words – ‘trying desperately to get the numbers to justify this pandemic response.’ This comment is an attempt to downplay the severity of a global infectious disease that has killed more than 42,000 people as of March 31, 2020.”
Statement 3 There are several inaccuracies in Owens’ [First Facebook Post].”
USA TODAY Discredited Plaintiffs for Its Own Financial Gain
77. On April 30, 2020, USA TODAY published an article on its website
with the headline, “Fact Check: CDC has not stopped reporting flu deaths, and this
season’s numbers are typical” (the “April 30 Article”).18 A true and correct copy of
the April 30 Article is attached to this Complaint and hereby incorporated by
reference as Exhibit E.
78. The April 30 Article is false and references Candace’s Second
Facebook Post and identifies Candace specifically by name.
79. The April 30 Article was used by Facebook to place a false information
warning label upon Candace’s Second Facebook Post. When one clicks the false
information warning label, Facebook identifies USA TODAY as the entity who fact
18 The April 30 Article is still available online and can be viewed by the Court at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/30/fact-check-cdc-still-tracking-flu-deaths-2019-20-typical/3044888001/?fbclid=IwAR17Rl8OjBWnU_v0r2wCKhZkIpP60r_CdNxXLlpoV7fX7uV7Z7du (last visited Oct. 8, 2020).
28
checked Candace. Moreover, this allows one to be easily redirected to USA
TODAY’s website by clicking on the link that appears directly under the blue oval
that states “fact-check,” as depicted below:
80. The April 30 Article was wrongful and improper because USA
TODAY intended that its article would be used by Facebook to place a false
information warning label upon the Second Facebook Post so that traffic from
Candace’s page would be redirected to USA TODAY’s webpage for USA
TODAY’s own financial gain. By redirecting Plaintiffs’ large following to USA
TODAY’s webpage, USA TODAY generates clicks and views that increase its
advertising revenue.
29
The Defendants’ Articles Caused Facebook to Demonetize Plaintiffs
81. The Defendants’ articles individually and collectively caused Facebook
to restrict the viewability of Plaintiffs’ First and Second Facebook Posts through the
use of false information warning labels. Moreover, the Defendants’ articles
individually and collectively caused Facebook to demonetize Plaintiffs by
suspending their ability to derive revenue from Facebook.
82. For example, after Lead Stories published its April 1 Article, Facebook
used and linked to it as justification for placing a false information warning label on
Candace’s Facebook Post that labels it as “false.” This false information warning
label entirely blocks Candace’s First Facebook Post. When clicked, the false
warning label reads:
Independent facet-checkers at Lead Stories say [the Facebook Post] has false information. To help stop the spread of false news, a notice will be added to your post if you decide to share [the Facebook Post].
83. Facebook’s warning label is based entirely upon the allegations made
in Lead Stories’ April 1 Article.
84. As a result of USA TODAY’s April 30 Article, Facebook placed a
similar warning label upon Candace’s Second Facebook Post, as previously alleged
in this Complaint.
30
85. As Facebook Third-Party Fact-Checking Partners that are signatories to
the IFCN, the Defendants knew that their respective articles would be used by
Facebook to discredit Plaintiffs through the publication of false information warning
labels. Moreover, the Defendants knew and were substantially certain that its
articles would be used by Facebook as a justification to suspend Plaintiffs’ ability to
derive revenue from Facebook.
86. The Defendants, as Facebook Third-Party Fact-Checking Partners,
knew that Facebook’s false information warning label would serve to redirect
Candace’s viewers to Lead Stories’ and USA TODAY’s respective websites. In
fact, the false information warning labels on both the First Facebook Post and
Second Facebook Post contain clickable links that redirect Candace’s viewers to
Lead Stories’ and USA TODAY’s respective websites.
87. Upon information and belief, Facebook would not have placed false
information warning labels upon Candace’s First or Second Facebook Posts but for
Lead Stories’ April 1 Article and USA TODAY’s April 30 Article.
88. Facebook’s false information warning labels improperly block and
obstruct the viewability of Candace’s First and Second Facebook Posts to her 4.1
million followers and undermine the content contained therein. The false
information warning labels actually blur the text of Candace’s First and Second
Facebook Posts so that viewers cannot read it. For example, screenshots of the false
31
information warning label from both the smartphone and desktop perspective for the
First Facebook Post appear below:
Smartphone View
32
Desktop View
89. As depicted in the Desktop View, above, at the time of the publication
of Lead Stories’ false Article, the Desktop View said “False” and not “Partly False.”
Lead Stories subsequently changed its label to “Partly False” after Candace
complained to Lead Stories about its erroneous labeling of her posts.
33
90. To the date of this filing of this Complaint, the false information
warning labels still block or obscure the viewability of Candace’s First and Second
Facebook Posts on the internet, across both the smartphone and desktop view.19
91. All Facebook users are confronted with the false information warning
labels on the First and Second Facebook Posts every time they view those posts on
Facebook, regardless of who shares the posts and regardless of whether the posts are
viewed on Plaintiffs’ Facebook timeline, someone else’s Facebook timeline, or
elsewhere on Facebook. In this way, Facebook and the Defendants are inhibiting
readers’ ability to pass along or forward Candace’s posts to friends, acquaintances,
and other parties.
92. Facebook’s false information warning labels state that Facebook will
attach the label to users who pass along or forward Candace’s First or Second
Facebook Post. The Defendants were aware that Facebook would attach this label
to all instances where users or followers of Candace would attempt to expand her
influence or spread her message.
93. The Defendants acted with actual and common law malice to curtail
and sever Candace’s opportunities to expand her business, her market for her views,
opinions, and publications, and her goodwill.
19 See https://www.facebook.com/realCandaceOwens/posts/3598900840181091 (last visited Aug. 25, 2020).
34
94. The false information warning labels attach to Candace’s name and
likeness because users cannot engage with her First or Second Facebook Post
without first clicking a button that acknowledges the existence of the false
information warning label.
95. In May 2020, Facebook emailed Plaintiffs to inform them that
Plaintiffs’ account and Facebook Page were at risk of being suspended or outright
eliminated from the Plaintiffs’ contract with Facebook for purportedly spreading
misinformation about the Covid-19 pandemic in its Facebook Post.
96. But for the Defendants’ articles, Plaintiffs would not have received
Facebook’s threat to ban its account and break its contract. Upon information and
belief, the Defendants’ articles were a substantial factor in Facebook’s decision to
threaten Plaintiffs with suspension and demonetization.
97. Shortly after emailing its threat, Facebook demonetized Candace
Owens’ Facebook Page, banning Plaintiffs from deriving revenue from her presence
on Facebook.
98. But for Defendants’ articles, Plaintiffs would not have been
demonetized by Facebook and would not have lost substantial revenue. Defendants’
articles were a substantial factor in Facebook’s decision to demonetize Plaintiffs and
suspend them from deriving revenue from Facebook.
35
99. Candace Owens, LLC derives significant revenue from posts it makes
on various social media websites, including Facebook. For example, between June
1, 2020 and June 21, 2020 alone, Candace Owens, LLC generated approximately
$780,000 in revenue from advertising on Facebook for an average of approximately
$35,500 per day.
100. On a monthly basis, Candace Owens, LLC loses $1,065,000 in
Facebook revenues. This along with other damages caused by Facebook’s ban result
in monthly damages of $1,082,750.58.
Plaintiffs’ Demands for Retraction Have Been Unsuccessful
101. Pursuant to the protocol established by Facebook for appealing the
misinformation warning labels placed upon Facebook posts, Candace sent an email
directly to Alan Duke, co-founder and a representative of Lead Stories, explaining
to him why Lead Stories’ Article was incorrect and should be edited or removed
from the internet.
102. Instead of acknowledging Lead Stories’ ironic failure to accurately fact
check its own baseless allegations concerning Candace, Mr. Duke merely changed
Lead Stories’ Article rating of the Facebook Post from “False” to “Partly False.” As
Lead Stories knew, this was insufficient to cause Facebook to remove its false
information warning label. It also did not properly respond to the well-researched
and accurate statements made in Candace’s Facebook Post. Although Candace
36
explained this situation to him in subsequent email communications, Mr. Duke
ignored additional emails from Candace. True and correct copies of these emails
are attached to this Complaint and hereby incorporated by reference as Exhibit F.
103. The fact that Lead Stories changed the label on the Facebook Post from
“False” to “Partly False” is a practical demonstration that Lead Stories’ Article is
false, yet Lead Stories has not retracted it or published a sufficient correction.
104. Moreover, Facebook representatives told Candace that they would not
remove the Warning Label on her Facebook Post unless Lead Stories agreed to have
it removed or Lead Stories removed its Article. A true and correct copy of this
correspondence is attached to this Complaint and hereby incorporated by referenced
as Exhibit G.
105. Without a further response from Mr. Duke, Plaintiffs propounded a
written demand for retraction upon Lead Stories and Facebook on May 18, 2020,
which identified the April 1 Article and explained why it was false and defamatory.
A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ retraction demand is attached to this Complaint
and hereby incorporated by reference as Exhibit H.
106. Although Facebook responded to Candace’s demand in a letter dated
June 8, 2020, which denied responsibility and pointed the finger at Lead Stories
accusing them of being wholly responsible for the April 1 Article, Lead Stories has,
37
to the date of the filing of this Complaint, failed to respond or issue a retraction of
its April 1 Article.
107. Facebook’s response letter to Candace states, as a matter of fact, that
the defamatory statements in the April 1 Article were published by Lead Stories and
not Facebook.
Lead Stories Published Its April 1 Article withActual and Common Law Malice
108. Lead Stories maliciously and falsely attacked Plaintiffs for its own
financial and political gain.
109. Lead Stories stands to gain financially from its false attack on Candace.
It profits from visitors being redirected from Candace’s website and to its website
and being exposed to Lead Stories’ advertisers and sponsors. Lead Stories also
profits from its contractual relationship with Facebook and has an economic
incentive to fulfill its contractual obligation with Facebook to locate and label
falsehoods and hoaxes.
110. By terming a prominent political commentator like Candace a liar who
utters irresponsible falsehoods and conjures up hoaxes that impair the national
interest, Lead Stories also advances its patent political or policy interest in promoting
a leftist agenda and thwarting Candace’s conservative agenda.
38
111. Lead Stories is an organization that knowingly employs reporters like
Ryan Cooper who have a provable and demonstrable left-leaning political bias and
an axe to grind with conservative thought leaders like Candace.
112. Lead Stories targeted Candace and deliberately aimed to censor her
opinion on the Covid-19 pandemic. Lead Stories has a contractual relationship with
Facebook and a patent interest in satisfying its mission to police Facebook posts.
Facebook has incorrectly and maliciously labeled Candace a “Hate Agent,” of which
Lead Stories is presumably aware.
113. Lead Stories actually knew and knows that that accusations made
against Candace were false. It has been alerted to that fact by Candace’s demand
for retraction. It has been made aware of statements such as those made by high-
ranking U.S. officials, including Dr. Birx, a chief member of the White House
Coronavirus Task Force, which support the factual basis for Candace’s Facebook
Post as previously alleged in this Complaint.
114. Upon information and belief, Lead Stories purposely avoided
publishing facts and including expert opinions that would have supported Candace’s
position in her First Facebook Post.
115. To the extent that the First Facebook Post relied on its own expert, Dr.
Lee, and Lead Stories Article relied on its own expert, Dr. Aiken, Lead Stories had
actual knowledge that it could not “fact check” the Facebook Post and prove it
39
“false” because the competing expert opinions about how Covid-19 deaths are being
counted reflected an inconclusive disagreement among experts.
116. Because Lead Stories knew that Candace’s Facebook Post could not be
“false” because it in part illustrated a mere disagreement among experts, it was
publication in reckless disregard of the truth for Lead Stories to accuse Candace of
originating a viral lie that spread on Facebook.
117. Lead Stories’ actual malice is further evidenced by its failure to retract
the Article in derogation of accepted journalistic standards and those articulated by
the IFCN, an organization to which Lead Stories is a signatory, as previously alleged
in this Complaint.
118. Even in May 2020—approximately one month after the Article’s
publication—Lead Stories consciously disregarded contrary information presented
to it by Candace to continue its attack on Plaintiffs.
119. Lead Stories—and its reporter Ryan Cooper—do not like Candace, her
political viewpoint, or her support for President Trump.
120. Upon information and belief, Lead Stories condones Facebook’s
incorrect labeling of Candace as a “Hate Agent.”
121. Lead Stories published its false and defamatory April 1 Article knowing
full well that it would be used by Facebook to attack Candace and make her appear
to be a liar in front of her followers.
40
122. Upon information and belief, Lead Stories itself selected Candace’s
Facebook Post for “fact checking” and it was not required, by contract or request, to
specifically fact check Candace’s Facebook Post. In this way, Lead Stories
voluntarily chose to attack Candace and to interfere with her contract with Facebook
and to impede her future business opportunities.
123. Upon information and belief, Lead Stories could have adequately
published its April 1 Article without reference to Candace at all, but it instead chose
to identify her by name and make her the centerpiece of its Article.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count 1—Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations(brought by Candace Owens, LLC against both Defendants)
124. The preceding paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference as if
fully realleged herein.
125. Candace Owens, LLC, at all times relevant to this action, had a contract
with Facebook pursuant to Facebook’s terms of service that provided for, among
other things, the ability for Candace Owens, LLC to derive revenue from the
Facebook platform.
126. The Defendants had actual knowledge of the contract between Candace
Owens, LLC and Facebook given that, among other things, the Defendants are
41
Facebook Third-Party Fact Checking Partners and themselves under a contract with
Facebook.
127. Defendant Lead Stories committed an intentional act by publishing
defamatory statements that it knew would be utilized by Facebook to justify banning
Candace Owens, LLC from deriving advertising revenue from the Facebook
platform.
128. Lead Stories’ intentional act was improper and wrongful in that it
constitutes a recognized tort (defamation), and because it intended to harm Candance
Owens, LLC out of political motivation. It sought to hinder the LLC’s ability to
operate and derive revenue from the Facebook platform, seeking to diminish or
eliminate a conservative opinion with which it disagreed. Instead of fighting free
speech with free speech, Lead Stories used its financial and contractual relationship
with Facebook to eliminate Candace’s speech.
129. USA TODAY’s intentional act was improper and wrongful in that
another of its motives in publishing its April 30 Article was to redirect traffic from
Candace’s Facebook page to its own website so that it could obtain more advertising
clicks and views. As such, USA TODAY sought to advance its sole financial
interest.
130. The Defendants were not justified in publishing their respective
articles.
42
131. But for the Defendants’ articles, Plaintiffs would not have suffered
damages significant pecuniary harm and other damages resulting from Facebook’s
demonetization of Plaintiffs.
Count 2—Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations(brought by both Plaintiffs against both Defendants)
132. The preceding paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference as if
fully realleged herein.
133. Before the publication of the Defendants’ articles, given Candace’s
prior success, it was reasonably probable—and absolutely expected—that Plaintiffs
would obtain future business opportunities and revenue derived from Facebook and
other social media platforms.
134. In fact, Lead Stories knew or should have known, through the cover
photo and profile picture of Candace Owens’ Facebook account, that Candace was
advertising and encouraging pre-orders of her new book, “Blackout.” A copy of
43
this cover photo describing the presale, which is immediately viewable to all who
access Plaintiffs’ Facebook Page, is depicted below:
44
135. Plaintiffs’ Facebook Page contains a large, blue “Shop Now” button
that would allow viewers to immediately navigate to www.simonandschuster.com,
where viewers could pre-order Candace’s new book.
136. The Defendants knew and should have known that their respective
articles would be used to place false information warning labels on Candace’s First
and Second Facebook Posts and that all who saw the First and Second Facebook
Posts—regardless of who shared it—would be confronted with false information
warning labels.
137. Lead Stories, through publication of its Article, unreasonably and
intentionally interfered with:
a. Plaintiffs’ opportunity to advertise and sell Candace’s book through the use of Facebook and other social media platforms;
b. Plaintiff’s opportunity to maximize the amount of pre-sale orders for Candace’s book;
c. Plaintiffs’ opportunity to expand viewership of Candace’s Facebook page and its accounts on other social media platforms; and
d. Other opportunities for Candace to speak, teach, publish, comment, or engage in other activities that either immediately inured to the Plaintiffs’ financial gain or contributed to Candace’s goodwill.
45
138. But for Lead Stories’ Article, Plaintiffs would not have suffered
significant pecuniary and other damages resulting from Facebook’s demonetization
of Plaintiffs.
Count 3—Unfair Competition at Common Law(brought by both Plaintiffs against both Defendants)
139. The preceding paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference as if
fully realleged herein.
140. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectancy of entering into and continuing
a valid business relationship with Facebook and various advertisers through
Facebook. This expectancy was reasonable because it was based upon a contract
and history of prior dealing between Facebook and Candace Owens, LLC whereby
Plaintiffs would publish content on Facebook and Facebook, through various
advertisers, would compensate Plaintiffs.
141. The Defendants wrongfully interfered with this expectancy by
leveraging their power as Facebook Third-Party Fact-Checking Partners to place
false or misleading information warning labels on Candace’s posts for the purpose
of redirecting web traffic away from Candace and directing it to their respective
websites. By such a scheme, the Defendants sought to increase their number of
clicks and advertising revenue by commandeering Plaintiffs’ large Facebook
46
following, enhance their status on the internet, and enhance their relationship with
Facebook as Third-Party Fact-Checking partners.
142. The Defendants were substantially certain that by publishing articles
that sought to fact check Candace and identify her by name, Facebook would place
a false information warning label on her First and Second Facebook Post and cite,
through clickable URL links, to the Defendants’ articles as justification.
143. Defendants’ actions were unfair actions because they prevented
Plaintiffs from legitimately earning revenue from Facebook, as well as from
enhanced goodwill, book sales and other publication opportunities, speaking and
teaching, and other business relationships.
144. Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectancy was defeated by the Defendants’
wrongful conduct. The Defendants’ articles were a substantial factor in Facebook’s
decision to demonetize Candace Owens, LLC and prohibit Plaintiffs from deriving
revenue from Facebook.
145. Candace Owens, LLC suffered substantial harm as a result of
Defendants’ wrongful and unfair conduct, including by being demonetized and
losing revenue.
47
Count 4—Defamation with Actual Malice(brought by both Plaintiffs against Defendant Lead Stories, LLC)
146. The preceding paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference as if
fully realleged herein.
147. Lead Stories’ April 1 Article is demonstrably false.
148. Lead Stories’ April 1 Article is of and concerning the Plaintiffs because
it specifically identifies Candace by name several times, as previously alleged in this
Complaint. Lead Stories’ April 1 Article singles Plaintiffs out in specific
accusations that charge the intentional dissemination of false information.
149. Lead Stories’ April 1 Article imputes specific charges of conduct to
Plaintiffs including but not limited to:
a. intentionally spreading a lie;
b. receiving advertising revenue from spreading misinformation on the internet; and
c. attempting to “downplay the severity” of a deadly worldwide pandemic.
150. Lead Stories’ April 1 Article is capable of a defamatory meaning
because, when read by a reasonable reader in context, the aforementioned specific
charges of conduct tend to, in no particular order:
a. subject Plaintiffs to hatred, ridicule, and contempt;
b. diminish Plaintiffs’ standing in the community; and
48
c. denigrate Plaintiffs’ fitness for her occupation at PragerU and as a media commentator.
151. Lead Stories’ April 1 Article is defamatory per se because it is
defamatory on its face without any reference to outside material.
152. Lead Stories published its April 1 Article and false accusations therein
as fact. Indeed, Lead Stories labels its work “fact checking.”
153. Lead Stories did not publish its false statements as mere parody or
opinion.
154. Lead Stories published its false accusations about Plaintiffs with actual
malice, as previously alleged in this Complaint.
155. Lead Stories’ Article was unprivileged.
156. Candace has suffered significant reputational harm as a result of Lead
Stories’ April 1 Article. She demands $50,000,000 in damages for reputational
harm.
157. Candace has suffered significant reputational harm as a result of Lead
Stories’ April 1 Article.
158. Even though the Article was defamatory per se and is actionable
irrespective of allegations of special harm, but for Lead Stories’ April 1 Article,
Plaintiffs would not have suffered significant pecuniary damages resulting from
Facebook’s demonetization of Plaintiffs.
49
Count 5—Defamation with Common Law Malice(brought by both Plaintiffs against Defendant Lead Stories, LLC)
159. The preceding paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference as if
fully realleged herein.
160. Lead Stories’ April 1 Article is demonstrably false.
161. Lead Stories’ April 1 Article is of and concerning the Plaintiffs because
it specifically identifies Candace by name several times, as previously alleged in this
Complaint. Lead Stories’ April 1 Article singles Plaintiffs out in specific
accusations that charge the intentional dissemination of false information.
162. Lead Stories’ April 1 Article imputes specific charges of conduct to
Plaintiffs including but not limited to:
a. intentionally spreading a lie;
b. receiving advertising revenue from spreading misinformation on the internet; and
c. attempting to “downplay the severity” of a deadly worldwide pandemic.
163. Lead Stories’ April 1 Article is capable of a defamatory meaning
because, when read by a reasonable reader in context, the aforementioned specific
charges of conduct tend to, in no particular order:
a. subject Plaintiffs to hatred, ridicule, and contempt;
b. diminish Plaintiffs’ standing in the community; and
50
c. denigrate Plaintiffs’ fitness for her occupation at PragerU and as a media commentator.
164. Lead Stories’ April 1 Article is defamatory per se because it is
defamatory on its face without any reference to outside material.
165. Lead Stories published its April 1 Article and false accusations therein
as fact. Indeed, Lead Stories labels its work “fact checking.”
166. Lead Stories did not publish its false statements as mere parody or
opinion.
167. Lead Stories published its false accusations about Plaintiffs with
common law malice, as previously alleged in this Complaint.
168. Lead Stories’ April 1 Article was unprivileged.
169. Candace has suffered significant reputational harm and humiliation as
a result of Lead Stories’ April 1 Article. She demands $50,000,000 in damages for
reputational harm.
170. Even though the April 1 Article was defamatory per se and is actionable
irrespective of allegations of special harm, but for Lead Stories’ Article, Plaintiffs
would not have suffered significant pecuniary damages from Facebook’s
demonetization of Plaintiffs.
51
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray:
(a) That judgment be entered against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for substantial compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
(b) That Lead Stories be held liable for the reputational harm it has caused Plaintiff;
(c) That judgment be entered against the Defendants for punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
(d) That Plaintiffs recover pre- and post-judgment interest;
(e) That Plaintiffs recover their reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses from the Defendants;
(f) That trial by jury on all issues so triable;
(g) That all costs of this action be taxed to the Defendants; and
(h) That the Court grant all such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper, including equitable relief.
Dated: October 19, 2020 /s/ Sean J. BellewSean J. Bellew (No. 4072)BELLEW LLC2961 Centerville Rd., Suite 302Wilmington, DE 19808Telephone: (302) [email protected]
-and-
52
Todd V. McMurtry (pro hac vice motion forthcoming)Jeffrey A. Standen (pro hac vice motion forthcoming)HEMMER DEFRANK WESSELS, PLLC250 Grandview Drive, Ste. 500Ft. Mitchell, KY 41017Phone: (859) 344-1188Fax: (859) [email protected]@hemmerlaw.com
-and-
John P. Coale(pro hac vice motion forthcoming)Attorney at Law2901 Fessenden Street, NWWashington D.C. 20008Phone: (202) [email protected]
Counsel for Plaintiffs
